General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
fatrat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magik Smoke
Yeah, god knows we would never see a fundie muslim pull a kamikaze attack.

Like I said before and I'll say again, you would need shielding to hell and back to keep from dying just trying to lug such a thing. It's unworkable in theory.

Ever wonder why all megaton nukes and atom bombs all had shitloads of shielding? It is because just being exposed to that large a pile of fissionable material yields shitloads of radiation even just sitting around. You would die just standing to such a pile.

As soon as I can find it, I'll post the plans for the Hiroshima bomb (yes, they are on the internet). It is something I swore I would never do, but you guys need some edumacation on nukes in general. Just do me one favor: Never try this at home unless you have a death wish.
Old 07-11-2004, 04:30 PM fatrat is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Magik Smoke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatrat
Like I said before and I'll say again, you would need shielding to hell and back to keep from dying just trying to lug such a thing. It's unworkable in theory.

Ever wonder why all megaton nukes and atom bombs all had shitloads of shielding? It is because just being exposed to that large a pile of fissionable material yields shitloads of radiation even just sitting around. You would die just standing to such a pile.

As soon as I can find it, I'll post the plans for the Hiroshima bomb (yes, they are on the internet). It is something I swore I would never do, but you guys need some edumacation on nukes in general. Just do me one favor: Never try this at home unless you have a death wish.

Fatrat, plutonium decays at a rate of about 20 millirem per hour*pound as long as the mass isn’t super-critical. Pure uranium decays at a slightly lower rate.

WTF is looking at gun-type bomb plans going to prove?

My advice is to stay well away from any intarweb bomb plans. Our friends at no such agency like to plant things like that just to get an idea of who's looking
__________________
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
Old 07-11-2004, 05:00 PM Magik Smoke is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

fatrat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magik Smoke
Fatrat, plutonium decays at a rate of about 20 millirem per hour*pound as long as the mass isn’t super-critical. Pure uranium decays at a slightly lower rate.

WTF is looking at gun-type bomb plans going to prove?

My advice is to stay well away from any intarweb bomb plans. Our friends at no such agency like to plant things like that just to get an idea of who's looking

What I want to point out is a small "pocket" or "suitcase" nuke like you guys fantasize about is totally unworkable due to the sheer size of the shielding involved. The plans for an atom bomb of the size of hiroshima would confim this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I currently am unable to find them (I know they are there, hell you can buy them for like $12 dollars these days), but if I ever do, I will let you see how unfeasible a pocket nuke really is.
Old 07-11-2004, 05:14 PM fatrat is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

Vagamus
pwned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magik Smoke
Fatrat, plutonium decays at a rate of about 20 millirem per hour*pound as long as the mass isn’t super-critical. Pure uranium decays at a slightly lower rate.

WTF is looking at gun-type bomb plans going to prove?

My advice is to stay well away from any intarweb bomb plans. Our friends at no such agency like to plant things like that just to get an idea of who's looking
Yep. I find fatrat's lack of accepting fact disturbing. Fact is, the suitcase and the sadm were portable. Theory of the rads frying them is right out the window there.

Beyond that, you can make a simple core, with a shield, weapons grade material, surround it in high explosives, a simple yet precise electrical detonation device and a few 9 volt batteries... bam... you've got a nuke. Guess what? Can be no bigger than a suitcase, or about half the size of a SMAW. Provided you either have the tech, or stole one from someone who does.

Nukes don't have to be big. One of the reasons we agreed to stop developing the tech, is probably because it was getting unbelievably small. We got nuclear bunker busters ffs... the core payload in those is roughly no bigger than the SADM. Hell, probably what they did with them.

As for the bombing of the vatican, I don't think religious targets would do anyone good. You'd have to be radically stupid to believe it will do anything worthwhile. Bomb the vatican, a world full of a catholics wanna kick your ass. Bomb mecca, a world full of muslims want to kick your ass. Bomb Jerusalem, a world full of jews, muslim, and christians wanna kick your ass. Seems pretty suicidal for any cause, but then again... wouldn't surprise me if thats what starts a third world war.
__________________
"A half truth is often a great lie." - Benjamin Franklin
---
"Alright I'd grant you this one" - Viriik
Old 07-11-2004, 05:15 PM Vagamus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Magik Smoke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatrat
What I want to point out is a small "pocket" or "suitcase" nuke like you guys fantasize about is totally unworkable due to the sheer size of the shielding involved. The plans for an atom bomb of the size of hiroshima would confim this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I currently am unable to find them (I know they are there, hell you can buy them for like $12 dollars these days), but if I ever do, I will let you see how unfeasible a pocket nuke really is.


Fatrat, they exist. I’m not fucking lying.

Do a search for "Small Atomic Demolition Munition" via google. That’s 50s era technology. (Pre-hydrogen nuke) The russian version is a little more advanced.

I can appreciate your mind boggling a little... but they do exist. You've mentioned a weapon called the asrock in previous threads... the warhead on that puppy weighed about 50kg and had a one to five KT "dial-a-yield".

They exist bro.
__________________
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

Last edited by Magik Smoke; 07-11-2004 at 05:27 PM..
Old 07-11-2004, 05:21 PM Magik Smoke is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

fatrat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
Yep. I find fatrat's lack of accepting fact disturbing. Fact is, the suitcase and the sadm were portable. Theory of the rads frying them is right out the window there.

Beyond that, you can make a simple core, with a shield, weapons grade material, surround it in high explosives, a simple yet precise electrical detonation device and a few 9 volt batteries... bam... you've got a nuke. Guess what? Can be no bigger than a suitcase, or about half the size of a SMAW. Provided you either have the tech, or stole one from someone who does.

Nukes don't have to be big. One of the reasons we agreed to stop developing the tech, is probably because it was getting unbelievably small. We got nuclear bunker busters ffs... the core payload in those is roughly no bigger than the SADM. Hell, probably what they did with them.

As for the bombing of the vatican, I don't think religious targets would do anyone good. You'd have to be radically stupid to believe it will do anything worthwhile. Bomb the vatican, a world full of a catholics wanna kick your ass. Bomb mecca, a world full of muslims want to kick your ass. Bomb Jerusalem, a world full of jews, muslim, and christians wanna kick your ass. Seems pretty suicidal for any cause, but then again... wouldn't surprise me if thats what starts a third world war.

Strap enough fissionable material to make a 2 megaton suitcase nuke to your body for a week and let's see who dies in the next month. My bet is you will. Why? You body cannot take the exposure to such a pile of material. Within 3 days you will be so sick you can't get out of bed, let alone get around anywhere.

Quit living in dreams and just realize such a bomb would kill your ass long before you ever reached your assigned target. It's not workable now or ever.
Old 07-11-2004, 05:30 PM fatrat is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Vagamus
pwned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatrat
Strap enough fissionable material to make a 2 megaton suitcase nuke to your body for a week and let's see who dies in the next month. My bet is you will. Why? You body cannot take the exposure to such a pile of material. Within 3 days you will be so sick you can't get out of bed, let alone get around anywhere.

Quit living in dreams and just realize such a bomb would kill your ass long before you ever reached your assigned target. It's not workable now or ever.
300 lbs (assuming no amplification principals take place) of fissionable material unshielded, of course that'd kill me. But we've BEEN talking about suitcase and smaller weapons. You somehow avoid this fact. I'm not talking about a 2 megaton device, i'm talkin about 1 kiloton devices that exist. You're tryin to say they don't. I don't know why you even bother.

Shielding isn't enormous, unless you plan to contain the entire area of the blast. Inert material is easily shielded on a launch vehicle, a bertha shell, or a suitcase/SADM type device.

Get your head out of your ass, and read the posts and article you're been given.
__________________
"A half truth is often a great lie." - Benjamin Franklin
---
"Alright I'd grant you this one" - Viriik
Old 07-11-2004, 05:37 PM Vagamus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatrat
Yeah? Can you show me a working model?

You can't. Know why? Because 60lbs of unshielded uranium would literally expose you to enough radiation that you would die within days. Wanna know the exposure level of such a pile? Somewhere around 700 rem an hour.

Your body can only absorb about 250 rem before irreversible damage happens.

The only way you can prevent that from happening is shielding, shitloads of it.

Like I said before, even the governator couldn't pick up that kind of nuke.

duh sixty pounds Including the shielding. We are not working with the low grade @98% isotopically pure material that fatman and littleboy used. It's hard to make a 10kt device anymore. You would have to deliberately use homemade refined material to get that low.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 07-13-2004, 10:49 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

CaptRR
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock
If the government actually expects the next strike on us soil to be from a pocket nuke one of the responses considered must be a retalitory strike at the percieved enemy.
Since that enemy is most likely going to be considered to be of muslim origin and is de facto state sponsored at least in part. What will the target be and is the continued stcokpiling of oil meant to give us just that shred more buffer room in case we give Mecca a high albedo shine?
Would Mecca be on the list as a primary response for psycological reasons? In a you had your chance to clean house and failed so we will do it for you?
Or would we just target current hostile muslim regimes and non friendly muslim regimes?


Their would be no Nuclear retalitory strike. After all who are you going to target?

No should something like that happen.

First the US would tell the UN to piss off, you would then see is a strike on Iran, probably make shock and aw, look like a kids fireworks.

The US would go to North Korea with an ultimadum, get rid of the nukes, or we start taking out power plants, screw the civilian suffering.

In short it would become a bad time to be a terrorist, CIA teams would start the scour the globe not getting info on terrorists, but actually sending assination squads, even if they are in a "friendly" nation. I don't think a terrorist would be able to hide in the middle of Paris without fear an American force would take them out. Americans would demand that ANY terrist be hunted down, and killed, no trial, no UN negotiations, just simply killed.
Old 07-14-2004, 12:42 AM CaptRR is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

Herne
 
Herne's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatrat
What I want to point out is a small "pocket" or "suitcase" nuke like you guys fantasize about is totally unworkable due to the sheer size of the shielding involved. The plans for an atom bomb of the size of hiroshima would confim this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I currently am unable to find them (I know they are there, hell you can buy them for like $12 dollars these days), but if I ever do, I will let you see how unfeasible a pocket nuke really is.

Its not unworkable and it's been done by us, the U.S. They werent exactly standard overnight rolling luggage size, but nor were they huge monstrosities. They were originally designed in the 80's as a means to quickly take out the large spanning bridges crossing revines in central europe in the event of an all out Soviet invasion. Trying to use convential explosives would have been unworkable due to the large amount needed to destroy such large steel structures.

The exterior shielding was enough to prevent deadly levels of exposure during the few seconds it took to activate the device in the middle of the bridge. It wasnt completely safe, but then that really didnt matter to the designers. It wouldnt have been the first time a soldier died carrying out his orders.
__________________
If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.
-Michael Corleone, 'Godfather 2'
The ownage is present.
-TheRedManThatCould
BEST 19K EVER!
-DigitalMocking
Old 07-14-2004, 01:11 AM Herne is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
"Another portable weapon is a "backpack" bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three "coffee can-sized" aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion. It's kept powered during storage by a battery line connected to the canisters."

And thats the 40+ year old tiny one

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/r...itcasenuke.htm
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 07-15-2004, 10:57 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

sybil
 
sybil's Avatar
 
If we even considered bombing something like Mecca in retaliation for a nuke on our soil we'd be blasted off the face of the planet. Even if Saudi Arabia's government itself nuked us, Mecca would be completely foolish to blast. If you did it during hajj, you'd get on the shit list of every country in the world who has someone from there doing it, and that includes every nuclear country.

If we did get nuked, we'd have to pinpoint the country that did it. If its a private organization, I don't think we'd be able to use nukes in retaliation. I mean, what if Al Qaeda did it. We already took over Afghanistan so nuking that would be disingenous. Pakistan is an ally and also a nuclear country. Where else would we retaliate? Iran? Al Qaeda nukes us and we nuke Tehran? Yeah, that'll work out. What if they got the nuclear material from something like Russia or China? N. Korea? What would we do then?

Something I don't want to think about.
__________________
Lolrus

Last edited by sybil; 07-15-2004 at 12:12 PM..
Old 07-15-2004, 12:09 PM sybil is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PopeKevinI
Given the Arab custom of immediately swarming over any disaster site to look for survivors, loot, and shout whatever it is they're shouting if they're mad about something, nuking Mecca would probably have the added benefit of sterilizing millions who came rushing to the city to yell and scream in protest (I always thought this habit silly, but to each his own, I guess).
I thought you were better than this. Way better.


Nevermind you sound like a racist douchebag, Tweedle Dee beat you to your punch line. I see how in your adolescent glee you could've missed that, since he can't spell "testicle."

But hey, if the thought of a hundred thousand innocent Muslims being vaporized doesn't give you a giant hard-on, what will eh?
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 07-15-2004, 01:10 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

jubjub
TweedleDumber
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip
But hey, if the thought of a hundred thousand innocent Muslims being vaporized doesn't give you a giant hard-on, what will eh?

two hundred thousand would be positively priapic.
__________________
I didn't say that I didn't say it. I said that I didn't say that I said it. I want to make that very clear.

Last edited by jubjub; 07-15-2004 at 02:33 PM..
Old 07-15-2004, 02:25 PM jubjub is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

PopeKevinI
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip
I thought you were better than this. Way better.


Nevermind you sound like a racist douchebag, Tweedle Dee beat you to your punch line. I see how in your adolescent glee you could've missed that, since he can't spell "testicle."

But hey, if the thought of a hundred thousand innocent Muslims being vaporized doesn't give you a giant hard-on, what will eh?

I was half-joking, and you should know by now (as I've said several times) that when I involve myself in such discussions that I don't mean it.

However, I was serious about the custom/practice of swarming a disaster cite in mourning and/or protest. I've seen countless images of bombed-out buildings covered in Arab Muslims shouting, chanting, and wailing in grief. As I said, it seems silly (and dangerous) to me, but it's not my place to judge this practice. When I thought about nuking Mecca, I thought about this, and figured since we were being dumb anyway we might as well really be dumb.

You take me way too seriously sometimes
__________________
THIS is your brain on drugs: "I'm not a positive thinker. I am a spiralling hexagonal vortex thinker that strobes multiple colors." -ry_goody
Old 07-15-2004, 03:00 PM PopeKevinI is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:41 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.